Somewhat ironic that Elon Musk's SpaceX whose ultimate goal is to make life multi-planetary, is now collaborating with agents that may as well be responsible for triggering a Kessler syndrome. Not to mention the fact their business very much implies the termination of human life -- if for the greater good that is left for discussion on a case by case basis.
SpaceX cleared for US military launches
21–30 of 118 posts
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#22Somewhat ironic that Elon Musk's SpaceX whose ultimate goal is to make life multi-planetary, is now collaborating with agents that may as well be responsible for triggering a Kessler syndrome. Not to mention the fact their business very much implies the termination of human life -- if for the greater good that is left for discussion on a case by case basis.
"their business very much implies the termination of human life" .. you are assuming a perfect world where no other entity wants to harm human life. Also, GPS satellites were created for the military. They are fundamental for our daily lives around the world now.
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not seeing the connection to the F-35. I guess you know there was a competition for the right to build the JSF. Both aircraft met all the requirements for the competition. So can you please clarify?
The F-35 continuously overruns budgets and gets more and more money poured into it. I think this is the what is being referred to.
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
"their business very much implies the termination of human life" .. you are assuming a perfect world where no other entity wants to harm human life. Also, GPS satellites were created for the military. They are fundamental for our daily lives around the world now.
Don't forget how much better the GPS could have been without the military putting the breaks on civilian uses and competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_navigation...
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#25Is anyone else becoming a touch bothered by the large number of BBC news articles that are being submitted to Hacker News? I love the BBC and BBC News is - for the most part - very good. However, the articles on their website are often lacking in detail and when talking about technology, they are often wrong or show a misunderstanding on the behalf of the reporter. The BBC News definitely has a place - I'm just not s…
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
The F-35 continuously overruns budgets and gets more and more money poured into it. I think this is the what is being referred to.
It has a history of overrunning budgets, yes, but the per-aircraft cost is declining and should continue to decline. I thought parent might have been referring to budget issues but I'm not really grasping how that's relevant.
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#27I like the old school dogma underlying the whole thing. Russia is bad, private enterprise is good, the US wants to put weapons in space, and Michael Jackson is rocking the world with Thriller.
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget how much better the GPS could have been without the military putting the breaks on civilian uses and competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_navigation...
A free service to the world, paid for by American tax payers out of the military budget. Kind of hard to complain.
Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#29Is anyone else becoming a touch bothered by the large number of BBC news articles that are being submitted to Hacker News? I love the BBC and BBC News is - for the most part - very good. However, the articles on their website are often lacking in detail and when talking about technology, they are often wrong or show a misunderstanding on the behalf of the reporter. The BBC News definitely has a place - I'm just not s…
8 (bbc.co.uk)
9 (techcrunch.com)
10 (arstechnica.com)
14 (nytimes.com)
14 (theguardian.com)
16 (washingtonpost.com)
16 (youtube.com)
18 (wsj.com)
32 (medium.com)
46 (github.com)
Of the past 10,000: 40 (kickstarter.com)
40 (reddit.com)
40 (theatlantic.com)
44 (forbes.com)
46 (bloomberg.com)
46 (securityaffairs.co)
47 (theverge.com)
56 (bbc.co.uk)
62 (washingtonpost.com)
68 (arstechnica.com)
69 (bbc.com)
70 (businessinsider.com)
74 (wired.com)
82 (wikipedia.org)
102 (wsj.com)
105 (theguardian.com)
157 (nytimes.com)
159 (techcrunch.com)
163 (youtube.com)
339 (medium.com)
485 (github.com)
In case you're wondering, I have a file of all submissions listing ID, userid, URL, and title. Then I did this: $ tail -n 10000 records \
| gawk '{print $NF}' \
| sort \
| uniq -c \
| sort -n \
| grep -n . \
| tac \
| head -21Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches
#30So really this is a more of necessity not to encourage competition. They need a replacement for the Russian rocket engines and SpaceX is the only good alternative.
There has been a lot of commentary in the news as to why SpaceX may not have been chosen. They don't have the track record that the current "monopoly" has. Even though SpaceX can deliver cheaper, these loads aren't nearly as price sensitive as commercial loads. SpaceX hasn't yet shown they can deal with increased load of launches.